In other words, a stealth campaign, out of the public eye, preaching to the choir to get the word out about the movie without anyone who isn’t a true believer passing a discouraging judgment on it.

I guess he means the previews, because once the movie is released it will be quite in the public eye. Plus, if Stein’s crowing on radio and TV is any indication, the campaign itself has been in the public eye all along. And the DI is apparently abandoning any pretense that ID - sorry, “teach the controversy” - is anything but religious.

An obvious question is “true believer” of what? Does he mean the generic “true believer syndrome”, that applies to anyone who checks their horoscope daily, or takes poorly tested supplements based on “testimonials?” If so, indeed many of those people will uncritically find Stein’s accusations of a “big bad science conspiracy” convincing, regardless of what they think of evolution.

OTOH if he means “true believer” of a literal Genesis, then we should take every opportunity to expose the well-kept secret that there is not one, but several mutually contradictory interpretations of Genesis that all claim to be “the” literal one. And of course, at most only one can be true. And the evidence doesn’t support any, as the “don’t ask, don’t tell” IDers seem to know.

These are questions which, although inappropriate for science class, especially in public schools, are fair game in the media. We need to stop helping Stein and the DI keep them “expelled.”

It will be a moderate amount of work, but an intellectually easy task, to refute the entire film line by line.

It also takes a moderate amount of work, and is an intellectually easy task, to refute the aeronautical ability of Rangifer tarandus. But not if you want to convince a 5-year old. And that’s more like what we’re up against.

OTOH if he means “true believer” of a literal Genesis, then we should take every opportunity to expose the well-kept secret that there is not one, but several mutually contradictory interpretations of Genesis that all claim to be “the” literal one.

OTOH if he means “true believer” of a literal Genesis, then we should take every opportunity to expose the well-kept secret that there is not one, but several mutually contradictory interpretations of Genesis that all claim to be “the” literal one.

Then perhaps you can do what no other Creationist or Intelligent Design Proponent has ever been able to do, and explain to us how a literal interpretation of the King Jame’s Translation of the Book of Genesis is science, and demonstrate how saying “GODDESIGNERDIDIT” constitutes as a scientific explanation?

As unlikely as it may be that you will acknowledge–much less absorb–any of this, here you go. Perhaps a lurker or two will benefit from this. Selecting quotes from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq[…]t/bible.html (particularly the “The Bible Has Two Creation Stories” section)

“Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

* Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
* Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
* Day 3: Plants
* Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
* Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
* Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
* Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)”

“The contradiction between the orders of creation between the two stories is rather glaring. There are other contradictions. As I mentioned earlier, in the first story, God creates according to a carefully laid-out plan, one set of entities at a time. He says after each episode of creation that “it was good,” indicating that he is very satisfied with what he has done. On the seventh day, he rests from his labors (though we are not told why an omnipotent being might need to rest). In the second story, he seems to be fixing up as he goes, only to see the principal objects of his attention commit a grave no-no. Here goes: I create the first man, but he’s all lonely. I create some plants for him. He’s still lonely. I create lots of animals for him. He’s still lonely. I create a woman for him, and he seems satisfied. I tell those two not to eat any fruit from that Tree of Knowledge, but that pesky snake talks them into eating some of its fruit anyway. I kick those two out of that garden, and I order that snake to crawl on its belly. Creating a Universe seems more trouble than it’s worth!

Methods of creation differ; in the first story, God “says” “Let X be!” and X comes into existence; while in the second story, God uses a more physical approach, molding the first man out of dirt (yecch!) and then breathing on it.”

… etc.

In short, the Bible contradicts itself. There are two creation stories, and they are very different–so different that they cannot both be true. Insisting that the Bible (and/or particularly Genesis) must be literal & inerrant assigns equal authority to both. If they cannot both be true, then Genesis is not authoritative. This conflict is probably what Frank J was referring to; “True Believers” ™ of the inerrant Bible avoid–or try desperately to double-talk around–this contradiction.

Good luck rationalizing how these two mutually exclusive mythic narratives both provide a better explanation of the origin of species than modern evolutionary theory.

Oh c’mon. This alleged contradiction is so easy to explain. God screwed up the first time and had to start over.

This was told to me in all seriousness by a religious fanatic. It is apparently a common belief among some fundies that there was a whole preAdamite civilization that went the way of the preNoah civilization.

God seems to be like any amateur who decides to remodel his own kitchen.

OTOH if he means “true believer” of a literal Genesis, then we should take every opportunity to expose the well-kept secret that there is not one, but several mutually contradictory interpretations of Genesis that all claim to be “the” literal one.

The creos don’t agree among themselves whatsoever. Ken Ham filled in the many blanks by making a bunch of stuff up such as Marsupials mostly in Australia due to continents coming together to let the animals embark and then turning them into boats to separate them afterwards. Some Xians consider rewriting and expanding the “inerrant” bible to be heresy and blashemy.

Then there is the old earth, young bioshere crowd, the old earth, old biosphere crowd (IDists), and lots of variations in between. In times past Xians would settle these critical differences by killing each other but mostly these days they just put out Soviet style propaganda films and beat up on science.

Re F.L. Brown contradictions in Genesis: Genesis 2 was written several hundred years before Genesis 1, by nomadic herdsmen. It is a beautiful folk tale, explaining the birth of human consciousness in a way that those people could understand.

Genesis 1 was written by urbanized exiles who had been exposed to the more sophisticated civilization and theology of their captors. Genesis 1 is beautiful in a different way. The complex symbolism and numerology, the careful balancing of pairs, and pairs of pairs. The overt parody of Gilgamesh; casting the sun, moon, stars, etc. as inert material objects rather than the lesser gods of the Babylonians. Anyone who reads Genesis 1 as mere historical narrative misses all the beauty of the story, and all of the authors’ theology as well.

In short, the Bible contradicts itself. There are two creation stories, and they are very different–so different that they cannot both be true.

Thanks J.L. Brown. Perhaps what you’ve said is what Frank J had in mind; we’ll just have to wait and see.

At any rate, both young-earth and old-earth creationists (as well as other writers whose exact affiliations I don’t know about) have in fact demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are neither mythic nor mutually-exclusive nor contradictory.

There is simply ONE creation account, and that account is given to us in a complementary NOT contradictory manner. For example:

And that’s on top of the extended explanation and defense provided by the late professor of Old Testatment Gleason Archer’s in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,
and also professor (and college president) Roberta Hestenes’ one-paragaph affirmation of Gen 1 and 2 being “complementary, not contradictory” in the book Talking About Genesis: A Resource Guide.

At any rate, both young-earth and old-earth creationists (as well as other writers whose exact affiliations I don’t know about) have in fact demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are neither mythic nor mutually-exclusive nor contradictory.

There is simply ONE creation account, and that account is given to us in a complementary NOT contradictory manner.

Let the lurkers check out the facts and judge for themselves!

FL :)

What facts? Lies and speculations are not facts! Anyone who reads the Genesis creation stories for what they say would SEE the truth and not be inclined to accept excuses for the bad editing job they’d see, unless they are bigots like FL!

I’ve read enough crap from Creationists and fundamentalist propaganda hacks to know how the semantic game is played from them, and it stinks!

At any rate, both young-earth and old-earth creationists (as well as other writers whose exact affiliations I don’t know about) have in fact demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are neither mythic nor mutually-exclusive nor contradictory.

There is simply ONE creation account, and that account is given to us in a complementary NOT contradictory manner.

Let the lurkers check out the facts and judge for themselves!

FL :)

Where is the original location of Eden? Where on Mount Ararat is Noah’s Ark? How did sloths, armadillos, koalas, kangaroos and i’iwis get to their present day locations from Mount Ararat? Why do the genomes of humans do not suggest there was a bottleneck in the human population from 4,000 years ago?

More importantly, what sciences have been derived from a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis?

So what your saying FL by using those links is that to actually interpret the bible you have to use outside sources of information? Quite specifically the YEC account compares reading the story to other historical works. Now based on that we know that other historical works have all kinds of interesting issues to grapple with when it comes to interpretation.

Moore’s just not looking at the big picture. It is funny to be putting out an “exposé” which has to be hidden from the general public as long as possible, and hidden from movie critics which could vouch for the veracity of any honest “exposé”. Then too, it apparently manages to avoid the facts that supposedly could support their claims, while engaging in a heated rant about how a highly successful science is the equivalent of naziism and stalinism.

It’s the whole that’s the joke, not its parts. The movie would be funny as the opposite of what an honest exposé would look like–if only it didn’t take so long to tell the joke, and if the joke were not such an old one.

Actually, as you can see in my reply to FL, I am not even considering the Bible, or the many interpretations of Gen 1 and Gen 2, but only the testable hypotheses put forth by classic creationists, and desperately avoided by the “don’t ask, don’t tell” IDers. BTW, I owe credit for the phrase “mutually contradictory” to Kenneth Miller, in “Finding Darwin’s God.”

For ~30 years (~1967-97) I too thought that it was just evolution vs. YEC. And to most people the fact that it’s not that simple is still a well-kept secret.

Actual serious academic scholars agree that there are multiple (the “J,” “P” and “E” texts) different / mutually-exclusive / contradictory myths in the first two chapters of Genesis, pieced together from different versions of previous Bronze Age civilizations’ creation myths.

FL, even for someone with your monumental ignorance, you should should know better than to invoke the loons at Answers In Genesis as authorities in any kind of discussion here. You’re bringing a spoon to a knife fight.

Moore’s just not looking at the big picture. It is funny to be putting out an “exposé” which has to be hidden from the general public as long as possible, and hidden from movie critics which could vouch for the veracity of any honest “exposé”. Then too, it apparently manages to avoid the facts that supposedly could support their claims, while engaging in a heated rant about how a highly successful science is the equivalent of naziism and stalinism.

It’s the whole that’s the joke, not its parts. The movie would be funny as the opposite of what an honest exposé would look like–if only it didn’t take so long to tell the joke, and if the joke were not such an old one.

If even Hollywood movie magic and the oiliest, unctuous political spin-doctors can not grant Intelligent Design/Creationism even the most superficial veneer of scientific legitimacy, then Intelligent Design/Creationism is a totally lost cause.

Unfortunately, it would take a supernatural miracle of literal earthshaking proportions for Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists to realize this.

Actual serious academic scholars agree that there are multiple (the “J,” “P” and “E” texts) different / mutually-exclusive / contradictory myths in the first two chapters of Genesis, pieced together from different versions of previous Bronze Age civilizations’ creation myths.

I looked at the AiG link, and it presupposes that there is only myth and that the translation is in error. This throws out the boringly repeated and fundamentally inaccurate creationist argument that science presupposes “materialism”, but even better AiG claims up front that the bible is neither accurate nor the literal truth!

So can we please teach the controversy in comparative religion class now?

Let me ask you directly: is it okay for PT readers to respond to specific points(s) that evolutionist posters have *already* made within a given thread, or not?

You said **absolutely nothing** to Frank J when he spoke of “the well-kept secret”, even though that “well-kept secret” really had nothing to do with Roger Moore’s Orlando Sentinel article.

So why is it off-limits for myself, or anybody, to respond to Frank J’s particular claim? Or to respond to J.L. Brown’s explanation of what Frank J “probably” meant?

I also notice that you did not criticize any other posters for offering responses and criticisms to my respectful reply to J.L. Brown.
We’re all adults here; I didn’t force anybody to respond to my reply to Brown. Those evolutionists who responded afterwards, (including Frank J), did so of their own adult free will.

I truly do not ask or seek permission to derail anybody’s threads, least of all yours. But I don’t mind appealing to what I sincerely hope is your sense of fairness and balance.
You allowed Frank J and JL Brown to say their points freely and unhindered; so please allow ALL your readers, (no matter what persuasion they may be, including my persuasion), the right to respectfully respond—either pro or con—to *whatever* points are *already* posted to a particular thread by the evolutionist posters themselves.

Ok. Stop feeding the trolls. Everyone please. These endless discussions about how Genesis does or does not present contradicting stories distract. Surely there are better issues to discuss than the creation myths found in so many different cultures and which were obviously a foundation for the writers of Genesis.

Let me ask you directly: is it okay for PT readers to respond to specific points(s) that evolutionist posters have *already* made within a given thread, or not?

This is kinda disingenuous. Frank J’s point was about Stien’s dishonesty, and how it extends to his own religious doctrine as well as to reality. Like any creationist, Stein is dishonest about everything generally.

FL then jumped in demanding a clarification of bibilical interpretation, somewhat off the intended topic of Stein’s inherent dishonesty. Frank J’s intent certainly wasn’t to start a sectarian dispute over the exact nature of the incoherency of various ancient myths. Frank J was talking about Stein.

And, unfortunately but as usual, someone (in this case J.L.Brown) showed up to rub FL’s face in the self-evident (but off-topic) nonsense FL pretended ignorance about. Which of course is exactly what FL wanted, namely to sidetrack a thread about Stein’s activities into a debate about how badly creationists lie about the bible just as they do about everything else.

So here’s the discussion in a nutshell:

Frank J: Stein is not only dishonest about evolution, he’s dishonest about the bible.

FL: How is Stein’s dishonesty about the bible “wrong” exactly?

J.L.Brown: Here’s how. In detail. You are answered.

PvM: FL derailed the thread.

Well, yes. In his initial post, FL changed the subject from Stein’s dishonesty to the interpretation of scripture. I think J.L.Brown was wrong in making the attempt to show FL’s dishonesty, because that’s not the topic of the thread. J.L.Brown should have realized that FL’s purpose was NOT to discuss Stein, but to preach (his personal interpretation of) his demented faith. The only item of interest is that as a creationist, FL indeed lies about his scripture. Creationists can’t help lying, and at least we see this even though these particular creationist lies were off topic.

So, to put what Flint eloquently said more succintly, Ben Stein and FL demonstrate why whatever any creationist says is, at best, extraordinarily suspect, and at worst, a baldfaced lie.

I mean, given as how Ben Stein trots out the rotten chestnuts of how “Darwinism” gave birth to Nazism and Stalinism while not even attempting to explain why none of Hitler’s memoirs and speeches, or the memoirs of his confidants ever suggest that he so much as touched On the Origins of Species, or why Stalin’s pet biologist, Lysenko, was a staunch opponent of Evolutionary Theory who denounced it, together with Modern Genetics as “The Whore of Capitalism,” informed people get the impression that either 1) Ben Stein is lying through the skin of political bunghole, or 2) he’s as criminally incompetent a researcher as Ann Coulter.

And then we have FL, who behaves just like Ben Stein, except only smarmier. I don’t see why FL has any right to complain about mistreatment, as he reproduces pure smarm, and never bothering to give any truthful or coherent answers to any questions ever asked of him.

I may have simply missed it, but I didn’t see any mention of Coral Ridge Ministries. They are based in Florida, and they have been pushing this crap using stuff from the DI.

I noticed on their TV programs recently that they are in a major fund raising campaign and are expressing the need for millions of dollars in rather urgent terms. They seem quite concerned about the upcoming presidential election.

Does anyone know how much they are involved in this? I’m sure they would like to influence the election as much as possible. The timing may not be an accident.

Our little trolly FL is just the sort that Ben Stein and the DI frauds are aiming for.

They (DI and friends) know that they can’t bamboozle people who are actually literate in the methods and findings of science. But FL is just what they’re looking for. Ignorant. Credulous. And possibly voting age.

FL serves a purpose here, even if he probably doesn’t realize it. He shows us just who DI is trying to manipulate in their war on science and reason.

Ben Stein, the doofus who couldn’t find his ass with both hands and a flashlight, and FL . … soul mates.

More Stealth
I rec’vd an email today describing a conversation between an “atheist scientist professor” and a student.
It’s well written although neither character is real-world – I don’t know many profs who would tout atheism to a student (especially so inanely) and the student knows more than most professors hope to see.
It concluded that I should pass on the message if it left a smile on my face. Of course, it’s anti-evolution.
Does anyone know about this? I strongly suspect this came from the DI.
Does anyone have a good answer? I’m going to send one back – to the effect that lots of religious people also accept evolution as a valid scientific tool, and lots of scientist are able to accept evolution and be religious too.

We need only go back some sixty years, and we find that even grownup, highly educated people deny what took place in Nazi Germany. In spite of survivors testimonies, in spite of film and photos taken by the Germans themselves, in spite of large heaps of clothes, hair, bones.
Not even events that happened in our own times are accepted as true history.
When we take a closer look at our own, European History, we find that what we think we know about Napoleon, or the Vikings, are not quite what the facts really shows when we take a closer look.

Going two, three, four, or five thousand years back then means that our knowledge becomes rather thin. Contemporary literature becomes sparse; more and more inaccurate. History in those times was oral traditions about heroic deeds, catastrophes like the ‘Great Flood’, about crop failures and about the whims of the Gods. They were told by the campfire, coloured by the storytellers and reshaped to serve a moralizing purpose. They were passed on from man to man, from generation to generation before a scribe put his own version on parchment or clay tablets.
And we must realize that the book that we lean on for information about the earliest times originated in the same manner. Both with the Israelites and the semi-nomadic shepherding tribes in southern- and mid- Palestine, epics and stories about earlier heroes or “tribal fathers”, about tragedies and happenings. Events were connected with named heroes or “fathers”, just like our modern traditions recount stories about strong or wise men. And these stories were told and retold as fairytales within the tribe.

When tribes joined together, the epics, the stories became common tribal property. And the “tribal fathers” after whom the tribes were named, traditionally became “brothers”.

The 12 tribes of Israel had each their own founding father. When the tribes joined, the fathers became “brothers” in the mind of the people, and Jacob “Israel” became the father of them all.
The stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob originated as unrelated stories within the Semitic, semi-nomadic sheepherders in Palestine. But when these small tribes joined with the Hebrew that had migrated out of Egypt (a story of its own that actually may be a myth, but I will let that problem rest here), the stories again became incorporated in the common body of myths, whether referring to real events or persons, or not.

Thus, the Semitic tribal fathers became patriarchs for the entire nation that grew out of this.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob belonged to different tribes and were not related, but the stories grew together into a collection and the persons were tied together as members of the same family. Isaac became son of Abraham, with Esau and Jacob becoming Isaac’s sons. And Jacob became equipped with twelve sons, so the twelve tribes should be equal.

Into this storytelling old adventure stories also were incorporated, and they were told as being as credible as the heroic epics. The motif in the story about Joseph and the wife of Potifar for instance is copied from the Egyptian fairytale “The two Brothers”.
Of old an enmity existed between the semi-nomadic sheepherders and the Bedouins. In the production of myths, the sheepherders therefore made a story about how the Bedouins were descendants of a farmer that had fled because of murdering his brother. We recognize the story about Cain and Abel. They then equipped Adam and Eve with a third son, Set, who was made god-fearing and straight enough to be the one they themselves descended from.

In Canaan, drought was the enemy; high summer was the death of nature. But with autumn the rains came, and nature awakened to life again. The creation myth of the Canaanites therefore speaks of the dry, arid land that their God bless with rain and wells breaking forth.
Thus life was created on Earth. Contrary to that, in Babylon floods were the dangerous problem.Their creation myth, that also became known by the Israelites and incorporated into their folklore, therefore tells that it began with waters all over, then with land rising out of the water. The two creation myths are placed side by side in the bible and they are both equally true and believable.

Most likely, people in those times believed those stories as more than just stories. For them, it was real history that earth and heavens, man and animals suddenly were created. They were aware of the existence of other peoples with other gods, but they were not part of their own history and how they might have been created was of no concern to them. So therefore, there was no problem for Cain to find a wife.
Most of the myths in Genesis are older than the immigration of the Israelites. They had been part of the tribal traditions for a long time. Their concept of God also was quite different. The patriarchs knew gods like El-sjaddai and Elohim, and neither Abram, Isaac or Jacob knew anything about Moses’ new creation, Yahweh. According to 2. Mos. 3, Moses asked the new god what he should be called, and the god replied: “I am who I am.” The story leaves no doubt that it is a new, hitherto unknown god that is being introduced, but history has made him identical with the god of the patriarch’s. While more likely they had been family- or tribal gods, this new god was made the god of the Israeli nation, and theirs only. And in later history telling he became the god of the ancient myths and fairytales.

Surely there are better issues to discuss than the creation myths found in so many different cultures and which were obviously a foundation for the writers of Genesis.

IDers, and classic creationists since at least Henry Morris, have insisted that their account is supported independent of the Bible. Michael Behe even said that to read the Bible as a science text is “silly.” So I specifically avoided Bible references. And I wish everyone else would stop taking the bait.

I’m not sure if Stein stated his position yet, but since he likes to talk so much, sooner or later he will have to tell us whether he thinks life has a ~4 billion year history, and whether he thinks that humans and broccoli share common ancestors - as mainstream science and Behe do.

Only one historical account fits the evidence, whatever the theory that explains it. The DI has been trying its darndest to cover up that inconvenient fact. And IMO our side has been letting them off the hook far too often. Maybe Stein can finally change that.

According to 2. Mos. 3, Moses asked the new god what he should be called, and the god replied: “I am who I am.”

I guess you mean the book which English-speaking folks call Exodus? So there you have it, folks, Deus ex machina: Popeye, yet another nickname for Odin! .-) Well, I never knew that!
Another, simplified version.

By my count, there’s four or five posts (if you count Rrr quoting Rolf) that continue to address or refer to me in one way or another after PvM asked everybody “not to feed the troll.”
These posts include several outright insults, I see.

And I notice that another two of those posts, simply go right back to discussing Genesis (and Exodus), even though PvM specifically said that such discussion was a “distraction” which was presumably why you weren’t supposed to “feed the troll” in the first place.

I respect PvM, and if you check previous threads, I do NOT try to keep arguing once he says “don’t feed the troll” (an ad-hom in itself), but c’mon guys.
As educated as you are, surely you’ve acquired enough common sense to see how your actions are looking at this point.

My apologies to PvM – if I hadn’t been editing my post while comment-142063 by Frank J came up I would probably not have pressed Submit, since that seems to be a better response than mine. Mr Stein appears to be absent from this discussion, however, and I never watch American game shows on TV so I know next to nothing about him, apart from his strange activities in connection with this movie.

Still, if FL feels he has something constructive to contribute as a response to me and gets the go-ahead to do so, don’t let little old me stand in the way of his counting.

FL:

By my count, there’s four or five posts (if you count Rrr quoting Rolf) that continue to address or refer to me in one way or another after PvM asked everybody “not to feed the troll.”
These posts include several outright insults, I see.

And I notice that another two of those posts, simply go right back to discussing Genesis (and Exodus), even though PvM specifically said that such discussion was a “distraction” which was presumably why you weren’t supposed to “feed the troll” in the first place.

I respect PvM, and if you check previous threads, I do NOT try to keep arguing once he says “don’t feed the troll” (an ad-hom in itself), but c’mon guys.
As educated as you are, surely you’ve acquired enough common sense to see how your actions are looking at this point.

It would be fair under most other circumstances. However, creationists, including both FL and new initiate, Ben Stein, demonstrate time and time again that they are physically incapable of giving any straight, and or truthful answers to any questions, under any circumstances, even if their miserable lives depended on it. That is, if they have given any straight answers at all.

Of course, there is the fact that creationists are hypocrites who have no respect for anyone who have different opinions. If they did have respect for opposing points of views, then, why do creationists such as FL continuously insult and put down their opponents without a single thought about Christian charity, or demonize them like Ben Stein intends to do by dredging up the lies about equating “Darwinism” simultaneously with Nazism AND Stalinism?

If FL really does respect PvM, then why does he persist on the topic of Genesis’ alleged accuracy?

FL:

Actually, Stanton, it’s somewhat flattering that you continue to mention my name in the same breath as Ben Stein.

I’m not anywhere near *his* league, but it’s a very good goal to shoot for.

If you think my comparison of you to Ben Stein is flattery, then you’re as detached from reality as Reverend Fred Phelps. My comparison of you to Ben Stein is akin to comparing magnitudes of unpleasantness that separate a bedbug and a kissing bug.

If Ben Stein is so great a man as you claim, then why did he have to lie to all of the scientists he interviewed for the movie?

even if their miserable lives depended on it.

Oh, the utterly abominable tabasco-sauce misery of being me! I am so ashamed!!

But I do have one answer for you though.

Where is the original location of Eden?

Go find a quickie map of the Mideast. It can either be a Bible atlas or a Secular Atlas like Rand or Nat’l Geographic.

Locate both the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. (Mesopotamia area.) Draw a reasonable small or moderate-size circle around the two of them, with the center kinda in between the two rivers.

Your question is now answered. Regarding Eden, you now have the ‘hood right in front of you!

You prove my points about creationists being liars, and about creationists holding all opposition in utter contempt.

I thought you wanted wait to get PvM’s permission before addressing the questions put before you? Given as how you’ve jumped PvM’s gun, I guess you were lying about respecting PvM.

If you really want to shut me up and stop me from being the proverbial albatross around your neck, then it would behoove you to answer the first question I posed to you about how Intelligent Design can explain why the shell of the ammonite Nipponites mirabilis coiled the way it did.

Oh, and here’s a thought: If you want to surpass your idol, Ben Stein, why don’t you convince the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis to send you into Iraq, so you can go dig up the Garden of Eden. If you wind up being the person who rediscovered the Garden of Eden, you would eclipse even Ben Stein’s political faerie godmother, former President Richard Nixon.

the best way to deal with ‘FL’ would be to ignore him, he’s understandably upset about his side’s inability to come out on top in this ‘controversy’(there ISN’T really a controversy, but anyway…), and sore losers like nothing better than to try and make petty, tedious trouble for the winner. Guys like him and Bill Dembski are cut from the exact same cloth. He might BE Dembski, for all we know. Hey, FL, why don’t you explain to us how Jesus Managed to be dead for three days and nights between Friday evening and Sunday morning? That’s exactly the sort of tedious, obscure technical point you and your kind like to squabble ENDLESSLY over, right?

OK, FL. Let’s pretend that the Bible is science. Now, you say the Garden of Eden is between the Tigris and Euphrates, I suppose on the basis of the Biblical description. Fine. Got the map. There’s the rivers. Now, if I go to, say, Answers in Genesis (or any of a number of other creationist web sites), I can find some rather interesting speculation on how things like the grand canyon formed after the flood, and all manner of geological formations and mountains, including coal beds and whatnot. Great reading. YEC’s for years have realized that invoking a global flood to explain fossils and geological formations means some pretty serious forces. Most of this involves massive geological trauma, including the hypothesis that the continents motored along at phenomenal speeds, changing the face of the planet, lifting mountain ranges, subducting continental plates, depositing massive amounts of sediment all over the earth etc. So, with all of that catastrophic remodeling of the surface of the Earth, could you please elaborate on how you can find the Garden of Eden using a map and a “pre-flood” description? Maybe you could forward this to Ben Stein and have HIM explain it?

mplavcan — The neatest explanation I have seen regarding the location of the Garden of Eden is the current Persian Gulf. During the last ice age the sea lowstand was about 120 meters before the current sea stand: the Persian Gulf was a series of lakes, ponds and rivers, altogether a pleasant place to live. As the waters rose over about 10,000 years leading to the start of the Holocene, the bands and tribes living there were forced upriver, being expelled from the garden.

This is even consistent with the Lord’s angel in the east, guarding against a return of the expellees. And so the story grew in the telling and re-telling over the centuries of oral tradition…

There are still a fairly large group of folks who either think we found WMD in Iraq or that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. How is this?

You get enough people in authority to tell and retell a lie and it becomes historical truth.

For what it’s worth, the ID crowd really doesn’t give a rat’s ass about creation. There bigger goal is an American Taliban, where they can burn homos like witches. Their minion are already at work softening the American psyche to the idea of torture. Wonder if you can torture the ‘queer’ out of people? They’d like to find out. I appreciate the great scientific smackdown that many exceptional people bring to the forum here, but the design crap is just an offshoot of a more insidious Christian Reconstructionist movement.